I've been thinking about a newspaper column on "socialism." I put the word in quotes, because the subject is bogeyman scare-word "socialism," applied to any government program or tax policy opposed by the epitheteer, not the actual, government-control-of-industries definition.

Speaking of that latter, more accurate meaning: "Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is preparing to announce plans to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under government control, seeking to halt the crisis of confidence in the companies that make up almost half the U.S. mortgage market."

Chris Bowers says it's time to quit playing word games and recognize that Americans like a degree of government involvement in the economy.

Voters, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Moderates, Progressives, Greens--everyone is in favor of "big government" moves like nationalizing the mortgage industry now. And yet, all of those same people keep talking about how terrible big government is, and how we need to stop it. It is massive national lie. It is as though the entire country is a homophobe who is actually a closeted homosexual. It is as though the Emperor has no clothes, but now the entire nation has decided to dress to match.

Comments

[Jeffrey Sykes]

What's the socially acceptable word for opposition to a growing element of society that depends on government for subsistence and requires government programs to perform what once were standard functions of the nuclear family?

That's the creeping socialist mentality I am against. I know words have meaning, and I like to please everyone, so if someone can authorize the appropriate word choice, I'll play along.

Of course in macroeconomic terms we've had socialism in western democracy for a long, long time.

It's the dependence on government programs for social welfare that I am opposed to, because once that mentality takes hold, it spreads and weakens the overall entity.

[Ed Cone]

Jeff, I share your belief in the importance of hard work and healthy families, but I'm not entirely clear on the metrics you're using when you refer to the "growing element of society that depends on government for subsistence."

The number and percentage of American families receiving welfare, for example, has decreased sharply since the Clinton-era reform. Other social programs, such as Social Security, do cover a larger number of people than in the past, but that's because of demographic trends and increased lifespans, not changes in policy.

Proposed changes to health insurance would bring assistance to an increased number of families, but at least some of this can be seen as a reaction to the diminished availability of insurance through private employers, and the increased cost and complexity of modern healthcare. The same might be said of expansions to Medicare.

At least some of the expansion of government role seems driven by a corporatist ideology, not a socialist one.

[Andy Vance]

This is beautifully stupid:

It's hard to credit today, but as recently as the 1940s most Western political elites believed government ownership of business and national planning were the keys to economic modernization. Even when socialism's economic prestige was eroded by the West's capitalist boom after World War II, socialism retained credibility as a means of income redistribution.

It was the turbulent 1960s that proved a strategic turning point for the left. The worldwide social and cultural upheavals that culminated in 1968 were felt as a crisis of confidence by institutions in the West. Some institutions (universities, for example) defected to the rebels, while others saw their centuries-long influence on the population greatly weaken or drain away virtually overnight.

In the short run, most political elites weathered the storm. A big reason, the left gradually realized, was that socialist economics had become an albatross. Increasingly, the democratic parties of the left in Western countries downplayed socialism or even decoupled from it, leaving them free to pursue the anti-institutional, relativistic moral crusade that has been in the DNA of the left all along.

[Eric]

A large part of the problem with the use and misuse of the term "socialism" is that the term, even properly applied, covers some very broad and diverse ideological ground. The "government-control-of-industries" definition would certainly not apply to the various anti-statist strands of socialism, which favor social ownership/management through various non-governmental forms. People like Jeff Sykes might be surprised to know that there are socialists who are also sharply critical of the social-democratic welfare state (not to mention the anti-social anti-democratic state-socialisms exemplified by the USSR, PRC, etc.), though for different reasons.

[RBM]

At least some of the expansion of government role seems driven by a corporatist ideology, not a socialist one.

I would heartily agree.

This makes for a extremely dysfunctional government at it's best.

The pathology of the corporation. (see thecorporation.com) elevates the sickness .

One can see the results not only in governmental expansion efforts, but in it's traditional efforts.

US Government, "of the people" ?? I don't think so.

[Mountain Shout]

Scare word? With so many iterations of "national healthcare" being bandied about, I don't know if calling a spade, a spade, is a scare tactic. I mean, if I had some guarantee that I could indeed opt out of any piece-meal system, (which I believe Mr. Obama would allow), then I would be happy to sit on the sidelines and watch the thing degenerate. I would rather not receive my healthcare from the VA system, however.

I personally beat this horse so much because once these programs are implemented, they rarely leave. The system feeds itself and, whether effective or not, you simply lose the power to eliminate them.

[john burns]

I'm just happy the current system works so well.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH AH AHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[Melissa Westmoreland]

I prefer to just call it what it is -- theft.

But seriously, how should we refer to the practice of the government taking money from its citizens and determining how it should be redistributed?

Believe it or not, there are many of us who oppose "big government" and actually mean it. See also: Ron Paul supporters (and not the crazy ones).

[Ed Cone]

The Constitution, written in the name of the people, grants Congress "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

Even the Founders, who had big issues with unfair taxation, did not define taxation itself as "theft."

So unless we're discussing public policy in Libertopia instead of the United States, that particular rhetorical game is a non-starter.

How much we tax, and how we spend it, is the subject of great and ongoing debate in our Constitutional republic.

I guess we call the process "American democracy at work," if only because "American constitutional republicanism at work," while more accurate, is kind of clunky.

[scharrison]

"But seriously, how should we refer to the practice of the government taking money from its citizens and determining how it should be redistributed?"

You could start with the word "civilization". Governments have been levying taxes on their citizens since ancient Sumer. In fact, one of the main reasons the written word was developed was to better keep track of taxation.

The irony of Libertarians' complaints about the government "taking their hard-earned money" is that, in the absence of the environment created and sustained by a strong central government, those Libertarians would find that money a heck of a lot harder to earn than what they have now.

[Mountain Shout]

The argument, at least from my perspective, is not that taxation is theft, but what constitutes an overeach of the federal government? Where does the federal and state burden become too much?

Basic infrastructure, services, and courts aside, why should those that will never take part in misbegotten social programs pay into them? Social security, medicare, medicaid. Seriously, the more liberal among us love to spend someone ELSE'S money. Are there not enough liberals in this country to bear the burden of bringing gumdrops and unicorns to the masses? Or is it something else...

[Jeffrey Sykes]

People like Jeff Sykes might be surprised to know that there are socialists who are also sharply critical of the social-democratic welfare state (not to mention the anti-social anti-democratic state-socialisms exemplified by the USSR, PRC, etc.), though for different reasons. Eric the Leftist Elon Law Professor

Eric: Is that people like the Jeff Sykes who has a degree in European History with a concentration on 19th century international relations and radicalism or the Jeff Sykes that gets under your skin because he doesn't see the world the same way you do?

[Spag]

Sykes, don't you understand that by merely being a conservative you are assumed to be ignorant?

Here's a question: Are we moving more towards Socialism, or away from it? At what point does government taxation to redistribute wealth and services become so far removed from individual property rights (and money IS property) that the right is practically extinguished and what do you call that economic system?

[scharrison]

"Here's a question: Are we moving more towards Socialism, or away from it?"

While there may be some pretty good arguments that we are moving towards Socialism, it's really just an illusion. In reality, we are not just moving towards Corporatism, we're already there.

Money dictates our public policy these days, not ideology, and the main reason the rich funnel (Middle Class) tax dollars to the poor is because they are the most pliable of consumers and less likely to put their money out of reach by saving.

[Spag]

Sounds like the start of a good thesis that doesn't lend itself well to blogging, but I might agree with some of your postulates. There is definitely a corporatism in this country, but their always has been. But I think in some ways it is now trending towards fascism and that it is directly related to an increasingly Socialist mentality as well. The money flows upward and downward but there is a lot less in the middle. What is corporate welfare but another form of wealth redistribution?

[scharrison]

In their purest (theoretical) forms, Socialism and Corporatism are direct opposites: in the former, the government exerts absolute control over industry, and in the latter, industry controls the government.

While they can both evolve into Fascism, Corporatism is a much more dangerous route to Fascism because of the near-limitless power (from wealth) that is generated along the way.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have facilitated the growth of Corporatism in this country, and it's going to take reform in both parties to reverse it.

[Graham Shevlin]

"Seriously, the more liberal among us love to spend someone ELSE'S money."
That one sentence alone should invalidate Mountain Shout's commentary. I have not heard many people calling the Bush Administration "liberal", yet they quite clearly love spending OUR money, and then other money that they have been borrowing for years to finance all manner of misadventures.
All governments like to spend YOUR money, period. The challenge is debating and determining an appropriate level of government.
Bandying around slogans like "socialism" is an intellectually empty and bogus mode of debate. I tend to verbally slam anybody who tries working that term into a discussion of the US healthcare system for example, because most people in the USA cannot even correctly define the word "socialism", much less explain how the concept applies to a healthcare system.
And by the way, putting socialism or corporatism in capitals doesn't make those words any more compelling or plausible. We need a drastic overhaul of thinking in politics, and the dumping of the "left-right" and "socialist-corporatist" memes would be a good place to start.

[Spag]

But when the industry controls the government, it becomes the government and can use the power of taxation for its own interests. Many would say that our government does that now on both ends where the two headed beast is the corporate interests and the socialist politicians, each feeding off the taxpayer in the middle. I'm in favor of dumping both. Big government always leads to big government.

[Eric]

Oh for heaven's sake, Sykes, just calm down. Unlike you, I don't spend my time cyber-stalking people who post comments I disagree with, so I had no possible way of knowing what you studied in college. All I had to go by was your comments here, which suggested that you had a narrow conception of "socialism" as equivalent to statism. If you know better than that, I'm glad. I didn't even mean my comment to be a jab, but rather to suggest some common ground. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

And no, Spag, I don't assume anything at all, one way or the other, about someone's intelligence based solely on whether they are a conservative (or a liberal, or a socialist, or a nihilist, or a monarchist even). I do, however, tend to conclude that someone is ignorant if they repeatedly make fatuous arguments.

[Mountain Shout]

*sigh*, I know, I know, we should all be so lucky as to recieve our health care from our clunky, hamfisted government masters right Graham?

Please educate me as to the 'appropriate' level of government. Please explain how, as the beast grows in size, it becomes more efficient. No? I didn't think so.

It's also surprising that you haven't heard W described as liberal. The larger gov, increased spending, and foreign interventions lead me to believe he's a democrat on all save social issues. And who gives a damn about those?

Anyway, I'm waiting on your definition of the appropriate level of government. Good luck.

[scharrison]

Determining the appropriate level of government is going to vary according to the ideology of the person making the effort.

That being said, a growing population is going to require some growth in the bureaucracy in order for it to continue to provide the services it was designed for. The where's and why's of that growth should be looked at, not whether the growth is necessary at all.

A better question to ask is: how does "changing the focus" of government entities affect the quality and efficiency of the services they're supposed to deliver?

The State Department is supposed to develop sound diplomatic relations with foreign countries, in an effort to preserve peace and prosperity for Americans while promoting Democracy abroad. Instead, one of their core functions these days is to represent the interests of American businesses operating in foreign countries.

The Justice Department has not only become politicized in its criminal investigation role, it has become the defacto law firm for the Executive, helping it circumvent both U.S. and international law.

The EPA has been virtually revamped from above, and now if there's a conflict between a corporate entity and the Agency, rules are rewritten and the environment suffers for it.

I could go on, but you get the picture. For us to allow the subversion of these government entities, and then turn around and accuse them of overreach and ineffectiveness, is the height of hypocrisy.

[Spag]

So Eric, are you saying Sykes is making fatuous arguments?

[Eric]

No.

[Dave Dobson]

*sigh*, I know, I know, we should all be so lucky as to recieve our health care from our clunky, hamfisted government masters right Graham?

I think the point is, we should all be so lucky to receive health care at all. According to this, nearly 1/3 of our citizens weren't so lucky for at least part of the last two years.

If you're going to argue against government-sponsored care, you have to say how you're going to cover those other folks. Period. The private sector isn't doing it.

[Mountain Shout]

scharrison, I agree that as societies grow, agencies need to grow and adapt to fulfill their original mission. We also agree that a certain amount of subversion is taking place within these agencies. I am unsure as to what you feel is the cause of this subversion. Is that the very nature of bureaucracy?

Dave, no disagreement here. I am simply advocating a voluntary system. I realize I may pay more, in the end, but as long as it remains mandatory, I can't really complain. It's simply my belief that, over time, we'll have an ineffective system that degenerates. I hope we don't.

[Mountain Shout]

I meant voluntary.

[Dave Dobson]

A voluntary system doesn't work if the people who opt out still expect free emergency care if they're unable or unwilling to pay premiums. A voluntary system also doesn't work if the premiums are so high that the poor can't afford them. A government system will have huge expenses if the private sector siphons off all the low-cost patients and dumps them as soon as they get sick, which is happening now.

We need system that covers everybody, even the sick. Especially the sick. The private sector isn't interested. Easily 95% of my communication with my insurance company over the past 5 years has been them either (1) them trying to find out if I have other insurance, sometimes 5-6 times a year, or (2) them denying coverage for some weird technicality and then fighting with the doctor's office over it, sometimes requiring me to make multiple calls or just write a check. The free market isn't working to produce an efficient system here, and it certainly isn't producing a user-friendly or doctor-friendly one either.

[Mountain Shout]

Dave, I'm sorry that you have had hell with your insurance provider. I have no such stories and am happy with my coverage. With that said, I don't expect to receive coverage if I don't pay into the system. I do, however, expect those that clamor for this system to bear the brunt of it, effective or not. If I intend to stay with my current provider, I shouldn't have to pay for coverage I'll never receive. (Though I know I will)

[Ed Cone]

I don't think there's a single, permanent "correct" level of government involvement in a given sector of the economy. I favor private-sector solutions, but sometimes (e.g., health care) the private sector does not provide adequate solutions. At that point, the general welfare is promoted by government action.

What we need is a lean, agile government that doesn't devolve into sclerotic bureaucracies.

An example from my day job: I recently spoke with Vint Cerf, known as the "father of the internet" for his role in developing the basic protocols and architecture of the net; he's currently a senior guy at Google. Cerf tells the story of requesting permission to allow commercial email services to run on the young internet, then primarily a government network; within a few years, businesses were running their own for-profit services, and the government was out of the backbone-provider game -- but only after providing a critical bridge in the development of the commercial net.

Obviously, there are differences between the net and health care. Some people will always need public assistance with health insurance, and I believe there are moral and practical arguments in favor of government intervention in that area. But the larger model holds: smart, agile government that fills the gaps, meets the needs of the moment, and moves on.

[scharrison]

"I am unsure as to what you feel is the cause of this subversion."

These subversions are a product, both directly and indirectly, of the current administration's aggressive pursuit of a Unitary Executive stance.

The direct part comes from the President's belief that the various departments that fall under the Executive exist solely as a tool for him to use as he sees fit. If he thinks they should perform a specific function, then that's what they should do, regardless of whether or not it is in line with their (historic) mandate.

Even if these new functions are "good" ideas, as opposed to nefarious political moves or civil rights-limiting steps, the radical re-tasking of departments drives their efficiency and effectiveness to new lows.

But (imo) the indirect part of the formula is much more dangerous and long-lasting. The overall administrative behavior of Bush's Executive has undermined the ethical structure of the various departments.

Through signing statements, verbal and written directives and the observed behavior of the leaders themselves, bureaucrats have repeatedly been shown that established rules and procedures are to be freely ignored if they get in the way. And FOIA requests? Feel free to ignore them.

They've also been shown that Congressional oversight is of minor importance, and should not keep them from pursuing their current objectives. Considering that Congress writes and amends the statutes these departments are supposed to adhere to, I find this last part especially troubling.

To bring this (sort of) back on-topic: this destabilization of the bureaucracy makes it much more prone to manipulation by corporate interests, and much harder (for us) to detect said manipulation when it occurs.

[Mountain Shout]

scharrison, are you implying that the KEY driver of government inefficiency comes from the "stance" of the executive? I would agree that Bush's particular...attitude towards the workings of the fed are counterproductive. But to place the blame squarely on his shoulders is, perhaps, an exaggeration.

I would agree with Ed that a "lean" federal government would lead not only to increased efficiency, but also greater transparency, which I think was what scharrison was driving at. Though Ed "favors" (not a backhanded compliment, Ed) private sector solutions, I feel that, for the most part, they're essential, save all but the most outrageous of market breakdowns. Lest we forget the most tired of cliches that, "The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

[scharrison]

No, I'm blaming the administration for the subversion of these departments. Which I believe has, among other things, heightened their inefficiency.

Waste occurs for many reasons, from the labyrinthine management structure to the short-sighted budgeting process, and the lack of information flow that is an artifact of the Unitary Executive makes such inefficiencies harder to detect.

[Mountain Shout]

Gotcha. I would argue that waste and mismanagement are inherent in a system with no checks and balances and zero impetus for cost control. With regards to the healthcare, the idea probably sounds great to a vast majority of Americans, especially those with NO healthcare. I just don't think they'll enjoy the results of placing ANOTHER bureaucrat between themselves and their doctor. But, I get where you're coming from now.